Prokofiev vs. Stravinsky

[karlhenning]

(. . . The people of the past that continue to satisfy the most are Berlioz, Prokofiev, Bartók and Stravinsky.)*

A great short list, Michael (though the asterisk is well-advised, too) 

[Lethevich]

This thread reminds me of the recent Brahms symphonies discussion we had in which people came to realise that the criteria for "greatest" and "favourite" can be different.

A poll was made asking which of Brahms' symphonies was our favourite. The results were more or less a tie between 3 and 4. Then another was made asking which we thought was the greatest (mentioning the slightly distinction), and the 4th won by a landslide.

I have no problem considering Stravinsky greater due to his influence as well as achivements, but greatness doesn't decide my playlists, and from what little of Prokofiev I have heard I prefer him by a nose at the moment (which may become greater once I gain more exposure to his music).

[Guido]

This thread is one of the most futile and pointless threads in a long time!

I must hear some more Prokofiev...

[karlhenning]

This thread reminds me of the recent Brahms symphonies discussion we had in which people came to realise that the criteria for "greatest" and "favourite" can be different.

Aye, a lot of the ideas remain much the same, and find a variety of application.

[karlhenning]

One rather obvious point of comparison (though, to repeat, it really doesn't 'fix' any question of 'greatness') is that Dyagilev worked with both composers.  Don't know that we could quite say that the impresario thought Stravinsky the 'greater' of the two, but it seems that Dyagilev made himself freer to advise Prokofiev on changes to his music, than he did the elder composer.

But then, (a) Stravinsky was a cousin of Dyagilev's; (b) Stravinsky 'got there first', and was a known quantity as a collaborator already when Prokofiev arrived;  and (c) regardless of questions of the music itself, Prokofiev's character was rather rougher to get on with.

[Guido]

I have a bit of a hard time with Prokofiev's string concertos because they are just rammed so full of ideas, so many episodes, so many tunes, that I find it hard to keep track of the whole. The Symphony Concerto is I think the 'biggest' concerto for the cello, even if it isn't the longest.

[Nick]

You've gotta do a better job of reading what the other fellow actually writes.  When you're equal to that modest intellectual feat, we'll talk.

And: psst!  No longer use the present tense with USSR.  It no longer exists.

(No charge for these services.)

The only thing more absurd than James' initial positing of this topic is Karl's stalwart denial that he doesn't have any opinion.

Now we all know that it's pointlessly subjective to determine whether Prokofiev or Stravinsky is more revered in the US or Russia at present. But it's my totally subjective impression that even in the free-state that Russia has been in since 1991, more Russians speak of Prokofiev and Shostakovich in superlatives than Stravinsky.

But then there are exceptions in each case. There are some people in America who speak of Prokofiev or Shostakovich in superlatives, and there are some people in Russia who speak of Stravinsky the same way.

[Nick]

One rather obvious point of comparison (though, to repeat, it really doesn't 'fix' any question of 'greatness') is that Dyagilev worked with both composers.  Don't know that we could quite say that the impresario thought Stravinsky the 'greater' of the two, but it seems that Dyagilev made himself freer to advise Prokofiev on changes to his music, than he did the elder composer.

But then, (a) Stravinsky was a cousin of Dyagilev's; (b) Stravinsky 'got there first', and was a known quantity as a collaborator already when Prokofiev arrived;  and (c) regardless of questions of the music itself, Prokofiev's character was rather rougher to get on with.

I agree with you on this point. It's really too bad that Diagilev and Prokofiev didn't hit it off better. And the same with Balanchine and Prokofiev.

The biggest difference between us here, it seems, is that you do think that what we call greatness is a separate quality from taste, while I think what we call greatest is very linked to taste. Both terms, "greatness" and "taste," are totally subjective and intrinsically linked to any individual. Karls, Lethes, and some guy consider Stravinsky to be "greater" than Prokofiev. While on this board, 18/28 pollsters voted for Prokofiev and not Stravinsky. It's okay, it doesn't mean anything.

To some extent, I think these conversations will eventually die off. When we look at an encyclopedic entry on Tchaikovsky, we never see some sort of crass absurdity at the end (and he was almost as good as Brahms!). Well, I don't know.

there is general & enlightened consensus which almost unfailingly mentions Igor Fyodorovich in a short list of The 20th Century's Best Composers.

What I really object to is Karl's suggestion that anyone who thinks less of Stravinsky than Prokofiev is unenlightened. It's a very haughty and condescending way of looking at things, and I also disagree with it.

[Lethevich]

To some extent, I think these conversations will eventually die off. When we look at an encyclopedic entry on Tchaikovsky, we never see some sort of crass absurdity at the end (and he was almost as good as Brahms!). Well, I don't know.

A key problem is that the 20th century has far more competition than Romantic or Classical eras, where the amount of truly inspired composers could be counted on a few hands for each. The lesser ones were sometimes very fine, but simply a step below. Even if Prokofiev would somehow be considered "greatest" of the 20th century Russians, he then faces a whole new set of rivals such as Bartók, Ravel and Schoenberg.

I feel that this is why nobody can ever decide on a near-consensus list of "greats" like in the previous centuries....

[karlhenning]

And of course, Sara, having a rich talent pool is a great 'problem' to have!

[greg]

This thread is one of the most futile and pointless threads in a long time!

I must hear some more Prokofiev...

Totally...

[Nick]

Why don't we sum it up like this. . . .

Objectively and according to both enlightened and unenlightened tastes, Prokofiev isn't a more profound musical creator than Stravinsky, and Stravinsky isn't a more profound musical creator than Prokofiev. All musical dictionaries, guides, journalists, and bloggers who try to suggest some sort of absolute statement about the greatest of one composer over another are absurd.

How does this sound as a way to close this thread?

[greg]

Sounds good to me.

[karlhenning]

I don't think it improves materially on my initial reply:

Banana, or, as either Sergei Sergeyevich or Igor Fyodorovich would say, banan!

[Nick]

Dear James,

I hope by this you do not mean to incite and start this thread all over again.

Frankly, who cares what I think. But I think that Prokofiev's most "profound work" to use a meaningless phrase is less "profound" than Stravinsky's "most profound" work. That is, I think Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16 is less profound than Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring." But I do think that Prokofiev contributed more truly great music than Stravinsky did, even though he lived 25-30 years shorter, but that's just my opinion, and it's completely open to taste.

It's funny, actually, that these two works, Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" were composed at exactly that same time. Exactly. And there were similarly scandalous reactions to each.

[karlhenning]

It's funny, actually, that these two works, Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No.2, Op. 16, and Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" were composed at exactly that same time. Exactly. And there were similarly scandalous reactions to each.

Well, not really similarly scandalous reactions.  Prokofiev's premiere was in St Petersburg, where taste did not run so daring as in Paris.  Which was one of Prokofiev's surprises when he did go to Paris . . . he was used to being an enfant terrible, but his music simply did not shock the Parisians.

And even though I think it specious to equate greatness with one's taste, I agree with your larger point:  probably there is nothing profound in the Third Concerto: so what?

[Nick]

Well, not really similarly scandalous reactions.  Prokofiev's premiere was in St Petersburg, where taste did not run so daring as in Paris.  Which was one of Prokofiev's surprises when he did go to Paris . . . he was used to being an enfant terrible, but his music simply did not shock the Parisians.

First of all, I have no idea what "profound" means, and none of us ever will.

Second, it caused a similar scandal, and not an identical one because nothing is identical. But as I'm sure you'll agree, the degree to which a piece of music causes a scandal doesn't correlate with how great a piece of music it is. Three out of four truly great pieces of music get premiered with not so much as a murmur. It's impossible to compare "scandals," but nevertheless, both of these pieces of music caused scandals, and they were both written at the same time. I find it interesting, that's all, given what I think about these two pieces of music.

[greg]

I might agree with the Second Concerto... maybe... depending on what you mean by "profound"...

In my opinion, his biggest work (most "profound" would be the Second Concerto), while most people might consider the 5th symphony to be his biggest achievement. Now, if you take another connotation of "profound"- the more intense, deep, side, which Prokofiev rarely shows (or more likely, doesn't have much of- as I like to say, Prokofiev doesn't compose profound or deep music, just great music), then the 6th sonata would be my choice- especially the first movement- I might add the first movement of the 7th sonata, too- it's not very typical of him to be intense in that way.

[The Six]

The 9th sonata is a brilliant antidote, kind of, to the heaviness of those war sonatas. It's crafted beautifully, with the theme of the next movement appearing at the end of the previous, including the beginning's theme reappearing in the end. If there's anything profound in the sonatas, the first movement of the 8th must be it. After repeated listens, I got how wonderfully he introduced that mysterious melody near the opening, and basically descended it into Hell. I know that the 7th is the most popular, but nothing can beat that single movement, in my mind.

[greg]

The 9th sonata is a brilliant antidote, kind of, to the heaviness of those war sonatas. It's crafted beautifully, with the theme of the next movement appearing at the end of the previous, including the beginning's theme reappearing in the end. If there's anything profound in the sonatas, the first movement of the 8th must be it. After repeated listens, I got how wonderfully he introduced that mysterious melody near the opening, and basically descended it into Hell. I know that the 7th is the most popular, but nothing can beat that single movement, in my mind.

I agree here. You could make a case for the opening movement of the 8th sonata being one of the most profound he's written (not to mention the longest).